Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-75 (2026)

Discrimination in compensation on the basis of sex. Prohibited practices. Employer demonstration

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No employer shall discriminate in the amount of compensation paid to any employee on the basis of sex. Any difference in pay based on sex shall be deemed a discrimination within the meaning of this section.

(b) If an employee can demonstrate that his or her employer discriminates on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees at the employer's business at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees of the opposite sex at such business for comparable work on a job, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions, such employer must demonstrate that such differential in pay is made pursuant to (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential system based upon a bona fide factor other than sex, including, but not limited to, education, training, credential, skill, geographic location or experience. Said bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor (A) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and (B) is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Such defense shall not exist where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

(c) No employer shall discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has opposed any discriminatory compensation practice or because such person has filed a complaint or testified or assisted in any proceeding pursuant to section 31-76.

(1949, 1953, S. 3016d; P.A. 09-101, S. 2; P.A. 21-30, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 09-101 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and amended same to delete provision re employment practices recognizing length of service or merit rating as factor in determining wage or salary rates, added Subsec. (b) re employer's defense to complaint of discrimination in wage rate based on sex, and added Subsec. (c) re retaliation for complaint of discriminatory compensation practice; P.A. 21-30 amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “equal” with “comparable”, replacing “the performance of which requires equal” with “when viewed as a composite of”, adding “, credential, skill, geographic location” re differential pay system, and making technical changes.

Cited. 38 CA 506.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Thibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 802 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 802 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 31-75 (prohibiting discriminatory employment compensation practices); General Statutes § 38a-358 (prohibiting discriminatory practices by automobile insurers); General Statutes § 46a-58 (prohibiting discriminatory deprivation of rights); General Statutes §…”

Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). “20 Indeed, in this regard, Washington hardly stands alone. As detailed above, a plethora of state pay-equity statutes have been interpreted by both state and federal courts just like the FEPA - - including, for example, both Connecticut, Conn.”

Fairchild v. Quinnipiac Univ., 16 F. Supp. 3d 89 (D. Conn. 2014). “§ 31-75 et seq. (“CEPA”), and Conn. GemStat.”

Paltz v. All. Healthcare Servs., Inc. (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 4× “; the Connecticut Equal Pay Act, Conn. Gen. Stat § 31-75 et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.”

Garaghty v. Wusthof-Trident of Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “; CUTPA; Connecticut Equal Pay Laws, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-75 , 31-40z; and state common law.”

Black v. New England Comput. Servs., Inc. (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-75 (a), 76(b). Under either Act, Platt’s damages were a bit too high.”

Boisjoly v. Aaron Manor, Inc (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 206 (d),1 and the Connecticut Equal Pay Act (“CEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-75 (a), § 31-76(b).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.